Amar Nath Aggarwal Entertainment PVT Limited vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Amar Nath Aggarwal Entertainment Pvt Limited, operates a restaurant with recreational facilities. The dispute concerns the applicable GST rate. For the financial year 2017-18, an assessment order levied 18% tax, but an appeal allowed the petitioner's claim for a 5% rate, as per the appellate authority's order dated 26.09.2025. For the financial year 2018-19, the matter is pending appeal. However, for the subsequent financial year 2019-20, fresh proceedings were initiated, resulting in an impugned order (Annexure P-10) dated 30.03.2026, again levying 18% tax. The petitioner argues that this is unlawful given the favorable appellate order for the prior year on the same grounds.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P-10) could not be sustained. The reasoning was that despite the Revenue filing an appeal against the appellate order dated 26.09.2025, that order had not been interfered with as of the date of the High Court's decision. Therefore, the assessing authority was bound by the subsisting appellate order which had allowed the petitioner's claim for a 5% GST rate. The Court emphasized that the Revenue should have awaited the outcome of its appeal for the financial year 2017-18 before proceeding with assessments for subsequent years on the same grounds. The principle laid down in Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. was reiterated, emphasizing the need for consistency. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P-10), which levies GST at 18% on the petitioner for the financial year 2019-20, is sustainable when an appellate order dated 26.09.2025 has already held the petitioner liable to pay GST at 5% for the financial year 2017-18 on identical grounds. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that once an appellate authority has ruled in its favour for an earlier financial year on the same issue, the assessing authority cannot pass a subsequent order levying a higher tax rate for a subsequent year. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. to support the principle of consistency in tax assessments. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue stated that an appeal has been filed against the appellate order dated 26.09.2025, and an acknowledgment of filing has been placed on record. However, they did not present any argument against the petitioner's contention regarding the binding nature of the subsisting appellate order.